Hacker News Reader

Comment by wongarsu | Hacker News Reader

Yes, if you strife for integration you have long discussions in your society how to weigh opposing interests.

I'm not sure what reasonable alternatives exist.

I mean, we've just had two male priests lose their job because they refused to work with female priests[1][2], citing the bible as reason.

Pretty sure that would have been considered quite radical a hundred years ago.

[1]: https://www.nrk.no/vestland/etter-avtale-med-biskopen_-mikae...

[2]: https://www.nrk.no/mr/omstridd-prest-i-orskog-gar-av_-ville-...

They lost their salary and legal employment, but the thing about religion is that you are not beholden to any authority other than the one you choose, so they can continue to practice being priests.

Striving for keeping the homogeneous culture that has existed for centuries and ejecting those who do not accept it is a reasonable alternative.

Jews have lived all around europe for centuries.

Lived and been subject to massacre for centuries and this well before ww2.

Apartheid has been tried before. Like communism it doesn’t work out in practice the way the theory predicts.

You have it backwards: ethnic violence is more prevalent in diverse countries without boundaries separating different groups: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Look at ex-Yugoslavia. Is it not working out? Are the people worse off in their separate countries, than when they were genociding each-other under a common flag?

"Good fences make good neighbors" wasn't invented out of thin air.

People in Yugoslavia weren't genociding each other in regular times (outside of WW2 and the Yugoslav wars), there was just ethnic tension. Furthermore, present post-Yugoslav countries aren't homogenous, and there's still ethnic tensions there ( in Bosnia, or Serbia and Kosovo). I'm not sure "working out" is how I'd put it.

Interesting standard. So only genocides during "regular times" count? And as long as there are tensions, you can't say things are working out? Anything short of perfect harmony might as well be civil war and genocide?

Honest question: has any empire (or powerful nation) ever been homogenous without genocide?

I think we can keep out immigrants who do not want to fit in without having to resort to genocide.

I think several millennia of European history show that they actually cannot do this without resorting to genocide. This has literally happened in Europe within my lifetime so forgive me if I ignore your unfounded assertions that 'this time' Europe will get it right.

Japan? Their natives were few in numbers (less than 2%), so it can be considered a Homogenous nation.

That's a good example (if we ignore their attempted expansion). I guess being an island helps.

Is Japan considered an Empire (on the power/clout level, not how they nominally call their head of state) before expanding to Korea and Formosa? I don't think it is.

How many centuries-to-millennia do Jews have to live in Europe before theyre viewed as having the same rights as all other Europeans, rather than being immigrants in need of assimilation?

If this is the baseline level of Othering involved in the thinking around this, you understand why people view this as an expression of anti-semitism. “Respect other people’s cultures and beliefs, unless they’re Jewish” isn’t a good look for the left wing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com